I don’t know about you, but I just love a good Freemasonic conspiracy.

Let’s face it: Freemasons have been trying to infiltrate the Church for over a century. They even announced their intentions in the mid-1800s, and were condemned by several popes who had no qualms about expressing the danger they represented to the Faith.

The ubiquity of the threat, however, began to numb most Catholics to its reality.

The subtlety of their work makes them appear innocuous, and this is by design. Their method of infiltration was laid out in a document known as The Permanent Instruction on the Alta Vendita, written in 19th Century. In it, they proclaimed their grand designs in a way that, in hindsight, can be seen to have been marvelously effective:

The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come to the Church… The work we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues… Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope in the manner required, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the reign of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and, if possible, even to the infancy. Never speak in their presence a word of impiety or impurity. Maxima debetur puero reverentia. Never forget these words of the poet for they will preserve you from licenses which it is absolutely essential to guard against for the good of the cause. In order to reap profit at the home of each family, in order to give yourself the right of asylum at the domestic hearth, you ought to present yourself with all the appearance of a man grave and moral. Once your reputation is established in the colleges…and in the seminaries – once you shall have captivated the confidence of professors and students, act so that those who are engaged in the ecclesiastic state should love to seek your conversation…then little by little you will bring your disciples to the degree of cooking desired. When upon all the points of ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as light, then you will appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative… That reputation will open the way for our doctrines to pass to the bosoms of the young clergy, and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair.

With this in mind, I found it really quite interesting that more than one of our readers has pointed out that Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto — Dean of the Roman Rota and perhaps now the loudest of the critics of the Four Cardinals* — is to be found on the famous “Lista Pecorelli” — a list of alleged Freemasons within the Church.

I say “famous” because many people know about it. I didn’t. But the list has been around since the 1970s, compiled by the Italian investigative journalist — later murdered — who gave it its name: Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli.

Investigative journalist and a member of the elite Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge, Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli, Director of L’Osservatorio Politico, a press agency specializing in political scandals and crimes, was murdered on March 20, 1979.

Prior to his death he published what became known as “Pecorelli’s List.” It contained the names (code names and card names as well) of alleged Freemasons in high level Vatican offices during the reign of Paul VI. Among the prominent prelates identified as Freemasons were Jean Cardinal Villo, whose family is believed to have historic ties to the Rosicrucian Lodge; Agostino Cardinal Casaroli; Ugo Cardinal Poletti; Sebastiano Cardinal Baggio; Joseph Cardinal Suenens; and Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M.; and Archbishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus, to name a few.

A priest who worked for Cardinal Ottaviani investigating Modernists in the curia speaks of the authenticity of Pecorelli’s List: http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/…/Paul VI…_beatified…

The principal “list” appeared on “OP” (Osservatorio Politico Internazionale) Magazine of September 12, 1978, the magazine of lawyer Mino Pecorelli, during the brief pontificate of JP1, thus subsequent to that which came out on “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976.

And sure enough, Msgr. Pinto’s name is there:

The book Guernsey links is Paul VI Beatified?, by Fr. Luigi Villa**. This is where, to the uninitiated, the rabbit hole gets deep. I’ve never had the time or the patience to go through the voluminous materials about Freemasonry and the Church. I have no doubt of the designs of the Masons, nor of the Church’s reasons for condemning them. But I am woefully ignorant of many of the facts on the ground. Of Fr. Villa, the website chiesaviva.comsays:

Almost sixty years ago, “Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI.

“The mission entrusted to Father Luigi Villa by Padre Pio to fight Freemasonry within the Catholic Church was approved by Pope Pius XII who gave a Papal Mandate for his work. Pope Pius XII’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, gave Father Villa three Cardinals to work with and to act as his own personal ‘guardian angels’:

Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Parente and Cardinal Palazzini. Father Villa worked with these three cardinals until their deaths.”

In order to fight this battle, in 1971 Fr. Villa founded his magazine, “Chiesa viva” with correspondents and collaborators in every continent. It was immediately attacked by the upper echelon of the Catholic Church: the magazine was ostracized among the clergy and its collaborators were gradually forced to leave. Then they isolated its Director and his few remaining collaborators.

The efforts to silence “Chiesa viva” once and for all also included seven assassination attempts on Fr. Villa!”

I do not vouch for this information, because I have not verified it. (Readers here have mentioned Fr. Villa on numerous occasions, and have done so favorably.) But I present it to you nevertheless, because it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

Of the alleged Freemasons on Pecorelli’s list, Fr. Villa writes:

“Pecorelli’s List” found credit even in the Vatican, where a young employee – nephew of a (well known) ecclesiastic (Father P. E.) – had handed a series of delicate “documents” to Monsignor Benelli, then Substitute of the Secretary of State, who made him swear «that he was not lying about so grave a matter». Some photocopies of those “documents” were also in the possession of Cardinal Staffa.

I had “assurance” of this “fact” from a cardinal of the Curia, who later also gave me some photocopies of those same “documents”.

3rd – The “Card Numbers”, reported on the “Pecorelli’s List”, confer a more than credible spin, since Pecorelli was a member of the P2 Lodge (and thus in the know of “secret things”), but also for the reason that, with that list, he had just invited the scarcely elected Pope Luciani to a rigorous control, with the intention of offering a valid contribution to the transparency of the Catholic Church Herself.

In any case, that “list” should have sparked off either a shower of denials or a purge in the ecclesial ranks. On the contrary, not a single “denial” was to be had. As for “purges”, besides, the newly elected Pontiff did not even have the time, perhaps even “because” Pope Luciani, “who had manifested the intention of having a hand in the issue of the IOR and shed a light as to the list of alleged Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry”, He, too, passed away in circumstances and ways as yet unknown. What is more, Mino Pecorelli, the author of that “list”, was gunned down a few months later, on March 20, 1979; hence, with him, were buried all of the other “secrets” concerning that Masonic sect in his possession.

Now, one could ask oneself: why is it that all of the “listed” in that “Masonic list” have never come together in order to deny that public denunciation, complete with detailed “entries” (Affiliation, Registration, Monogram), asking the courts for a clarifying investigation, at least on the graphological analysis of the acronyms at the foot of the documents? How not to recognize, then, that that lack of denials and that prolonged silence are more than eloquent as they take on the value of circumstantial evidence of the greatest import?

The only one to be removed from office was – as we noted – Monsignor Bugnini, the main author of that revolutionary liturgical reform that upset, in a Lutheran form, the bi-millennial rite of the Holy Mass, but it was only after the presentation to Paul VI of the “evidence” of his belonging to the Masonic sect, that he was sent away from Rome and dispatched as a “pro-Nuncio” to Iran.

[…]

The buzz about these people had been around since 1970. Let it be no doubt about it: it was not mere talk; it was “confidential information” we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to pass on to one another”.

St. Maximilian Kolbe had his own take on the matter. He is famously quoted as saying:

Satan Must Reign in the Vatican. The Pope Will Be His Slave***.

According to Michael Hichborn at The Lepanto Institute, this bold proclamation was personally witnessed by St. Maximilian Kolbe, who watched Freemasons celebrate their bicentennial in St. Peter’s Square in 1917. St. Maximilian Kolbe saw banners bearing these words amidst the revelry. It’s a jarring and shocking statement, but it is totally in keeping with the aims of Freemasonry and it bears a great deal of significance for us today.

Hichborn also notes the plans laid out in the Alta Vendita:

According to these documents, the Alta Vendita lodge of Freemasonry openly declared that its “ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction forever of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea.”

[…]

St. Maximilian Kolbe expounded on this plan at the founding of the Militia of the Immaculata. On October 16, just three days after the miracle of Fatima, the saint wrote:

“These men without God find themselves in a tragic situation. Such implacable hatred for the Church and the ambassadors of Christ on Earth is not in the power of individual persons, but of a systematic activity stemming in the final analysis from Freemasonry. In particular, it aims to destroy the Catholic religion. Their decrees have been spread throughout the world, in different disguises. But with the same goal – religious indifference and weakening of moral forces, according to their basic principle – ‘We will conquer the Catholic Church not by argumentation, but rather with moral corruption’.”

There is no question that religious indifference and moral corruption are the hallmarks of our present ecclesiastical crisis. The two most scandalous issues facing the Catholic Church of 2016 are the twin pillars of the capitulation to Lutheranism as witnessed by the pope’s pro-Luther statements at the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in Lund, and the deconstruction of the Divine teaching on marriage, sexuality, family, and the Sacraments as launched by the synods of 2014 and 2015 and the exhortation they led to: Amoris Laetitia.

And what of Francis? If Fr. Pinto — one of the pit-bulls he has unleashed against the Four Cardinals — is a Freemason, does that tie Francis to the secret society? It is well known that Buenos Aires is a stronghold of Freemasonry in Latin America:

Freemasonry is no stranger to Argentina, as the society has been present here for more than 150 years and has in many ways helped shape its history. Many of the Argentine forefathers, including Jose de San Martín, Manuel Belgrano and Domingo F. Sarmiento were freemasons, as well as many Argentine presidents. There are currently 130 active Masonic lodges in Argentina, 60 of them in the city of Buenos Aires alone, and if you do a little research, you’ll find their symbology present on many buildings, monuments and even in cemeteries.

When I read this, my mind immediately called up an image of a captioned statement Francis made in a meeting with Fernando Solanas, an Argentine politician, environmentalist, and film director. During the filmed conversation, he quipped:

In a statement on the occasion of the bicentenary of Argentina’s independence, he explained further:

We are celebrating 200 years along the road of a homeland which, in its desires and anxieties for brotherhood, projects itself beyond the boundaries of this country towards the Greater Fatherland of which José de San Martín and Simón Bolívar dreamed. This reality unites us in a family of broad horizons and fraternal loyalty. That Greater Fatherland should also be included in our prayers during our celebrations — may the Lord look after it, making it stronger and more beautiful, defending it from every kind of colonization.

Masonry preaches peace among men, and in the name of humanity proclaims the inviolability of human life.

Masonry curses all wars; it wails over civil wars.

It has the duty and the right to come among you and say: IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, IN THE NAME OF FRATERNITY, IN THE NAME OF THE DEVASTATED FATHERLAND, stop the spilling of blood. We ask this of you, we beg you to hear our appeal.

I’m not going to even to bother making the connection between “cursing all wars” and a certain someone who is always … cursing all wars.

It’s probably all just a coincidence.

Just like the fact that Francis was lauded by the Freemasons upon his election.

In two separate stories in the MPA upon the occasion of his election, we were given yet another glimpse of the odd acceptance of the secret society for Pope Francis. In one, we learn:

Grand Lodge of Argentina officially welcomed the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the Pope of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of the Vatican. Argentinian Grand Master Angel Jorge Clavero considers that this appointment brought recognition to Argentine nation.

In the last week several Grand Lodges in Latin America, Europe and Asia (Lebanon) welcomed the election of the new Catholic Pope.

In the other, a stronger but more cryptic statement:

The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy expressed his joy regarding the election of Pope Francis. Raffi stated that: “With the election of Pope Francis nothing will ever be the same again.” [Emphasis in original]

A truer statement has likely not been issued by a Freemason since the publication of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Maybe they got their man after all.

Correction: We originally reported Pio Vito Vinto’s title as “Father”; as Dean of the Roman Rota, his proper title is His Excellency, the Most Reverend Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto. We have corrected the story to reflect his proper title of “Monsignor”.

2 of 261 readers’ comments

1. Waaaaaaay too many data points and “coincidences” to ignore here.

Can we get Burke to send him another simple dubia?

Holiness, are you a Freemason?

2. One of the things that lead me to the Catholic Faith is coming to understand the Evil that Freemasonry is to mankind. Being convinced of evil at work, through men dedicated to the work of Satan in the world for the subjection of mankind, is the open door that the Lord took to convert me from atheism to Catholicism. That, combined with the ardent prayers of my mother, may God give eternal rest to her, and all of the convents and monastery’s that my mother enlisted to pray for my endarkened soul led me to the Eternal Light.

May Jesus Christ be praised both now and forever, amen. Alleluia! –Fr. RP

Update Dec. 1, 2016: The original source of Msgr. Pinto’s quotes, Spanish news agency Religión Confidencial, now says they erred in reporting that he had said the pope could remove the four cardinals from the College of Cardinals over the dubia. In fact, they now report, after reviewing the tape again, it is clear that he said the pope would not remove their red hats. See the full story here.

While the dubia of four Cardinals concerning clarification of Amoris Laetitia spreads wider and wider ripples in the Vatican and worldwide, the dean of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the highest appeals court of the Church, says that they risk losing their Cardinalate.

“The action of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted,” he says. “[The Cardinals] question not one synod but two! The ordinary and the extraordinary,” Mons. Vito Pinto explained during a conference in the Ecclesiastical University of San Dámaso in Madrid, Spain.

The four Cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked Pope Francis for clarification on September 19, and then went public with their concerns earlier this month when Francis failed to answer.

“Which Church do these Cardinals defend?” Pinto reproaches. “The Pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.”

“What they have done is a very serious scandal that could lead the Holy Father to remove them from the Cardinalate, as it has sometimes happened in Church history,” Pinto expounds.

The Cardinalate – unlike the deaconate, priestly, or bishop’s ordination – does not entail an ontological change in the individual, but is an office conferred by the Pope. Therefore the Church speaks of “creating” Cardinals who join the College of Cardinals. They serve principally as helpers – in Latin, “hinges” (cardines) – to the Pope in ruling the Church. Therefore, they could theoretically be removed from their positions and return to being “simple” bishops or archbishops.

Mons. Vito Pinto affirms that the Pope has not directly answered their dubia but “indirectly he has told them that they only see in white or black, when in the Church there are shades of colors.” Pinto referred to multiple instances in which Pope Francis stated that life is not black and white but grey.

In the same conference, Mons. Pinto recalls, referring to Catholic “remarried” divorcees, how the center of Francis’ message is that the Church needs to accept the injured and fallen: “A nun told me that there are people divorced or living together who are communicating. And what should the Church do, say ‘yes, you may’ and ‘no, you may not’? Pope Francis wants a Church that is very close to the people.”

For Mons. Pinto the only solution – and the key to Francis’ pontificate – is acceptance, what he calls “mercy.” “In our time the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy and not wield the weapons of severity. The Catholic Church wishes to show herself to be a kind mother to all, patient and full of mercy to the children separated from her.”

A huge media stir erupted this week over a report that the senior judge of the Vatican’s top appeals court said the four Cardinals who authored the dubia on Amoris Laetitia could be stripped of their Cardinalate as punishment for their remarks. But now the news agency that first reported the comments are saying that they misquoted him.

Religión Confidencial had reported that Archbishop Vito Pinto, the dean of the Roman Rota, said in an interview that it would be possible for the Pope to demote the Cardinals who urged him to clarify some questions regarding Amoris Laetitia. However, Religión Confidencial has now published a “rectificacón” (correction) that states that “Religión Confidencial […] put words into the mouth of Mons. Pio Vito Pinto regarding the statement that the four cardinals who have written the Pope ‘could lose their cardinalate.'”

“The phrase,” the correction goes on, “was taken from an interview conducted by RC in which Mons. Vito responds in Italian and it is not correct. After reviewing the recording, it has been proven that what he affirms is that Pope Francis is not a Pope of other times in which those measures were used and that the Pope was not going to withdraw from them the Cardinalate dignity. The news is corrected, but we publish this rectification in case it was not enough.”

The news was published on multiple news outlets, including LifeSiteNews, the Knights of Columbus-funded Crux, and EWTN Great Britain.

The news of Monsignor Pinto declaring the four Cardinals could be punished made sense in light of the fact that Pope Francis was said to be “boiling with rage” over the publication of the dubia.

After there has now come to us a sort of denial concerning the recent words attributed to Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto about the Four Cardinals – namely, that he did not say that the pope would remove the red hats of these Cardinals – the German Catholic website Katholisch.de has published its own interview with Msgr. Pinto where he now redoubles his critique of the four prelates. In this interview, Pinto again uses very harsh language against these Four Cardinals who have expressed their serious concern that Amoris Laetitia could teach the faithful doctrines that go against the traditional Catholic teaching.

Pinto now says about the Four Cardinals:

They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. That is a slap in the face. The pope can choose to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different from imposing upon him a counsel.

When the journalist then says in response that the Four Cardinals would answer that they had no other choice, the Italian prelate further responds:

They are not a council with any kind of competences. On the contrary, they as cardinals are bound in a higher degree to be loyal to the pope. He stands for the gift of unity, the charisma of Peter. That is where the cardinals have to support him, and not hinder him. By what authority do the authors of the letter act? On the fact that they are cardinals? That is not sufficient. Please. Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions, but to oblige him to answer and to publish the case is another matter.

As others have done before him (and in spite of the facts), Pinto insists that the pope’s family document is based on the work of two Roman synods of bishops – as well as the world-wide questionnaires circulated and received back. He explains:

The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four cardinals’ contest.

Pinto insists that the pope “does not force, much less does he condemn.” Thus, “some bishops are putatively having difficulties, others pretend to be deaf.” To the claim that Monsignor Pinto himself said that the pope might remove the red hats of these four cardinals he then responds:

I am not the type who can threaten [people]. To write something like this is quite a journalistic license and is not serious. What I have said is, rather: Francis is a lighthouse of mercy and has infinite patience. For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing. It was a serious act that these four have published their letter. But to think that he would remove their cardinalate – no. I do not believe that he will do that. […] In itself, as pope, he could do such a thing. The way I know Francis, he will not do it.

When asked about Cardinal Burke’s words that he would present a formal correction of the pope if necessary, Pinto responds once more with vehemence:

This is crazy. Such a council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts. And this is a fact: Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X. [My emphasis]

The Dean of the Roman Rota then also proceeds explicitly to criticize Cardinal Joachim Meisner for his own participation in the publication of the Dubia. When asked as to whether he is disappointed about the four authors of the letter, he explains:

I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. Meisner was a great bishop of an important diocese [Cologne] – how sad that he now with this action puts a shadow upon his history. Meisner, a great spiritual leader! That he would arrive at that, I did not expect. He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict, and he knows that Benedict XVI and Francis are in full agreement about the analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage. And Burke – we have worked together. He seemed to me to be an amiable person. Now I would ask him: Your Eminence, why did you do that? [My emphasis]

Pinto closes this interview with some seemingly flippant, if not superficial, words when he answers the question as to what should now be done: “Pray a little more, stay calm, basta. Officially, this action has no value. The Church needs unity, not walls, says the pope. We know how Francis is. He believes that people can convert. I know that he is praying for them.”

To sum up this interview: Pinto claims that the supreme principle of the Church is unity. He does not mention, much less affirm, that the basis of unity is truth. However, he claims that Pope Francis’s own teaching on marriage is in complete accord with the teaching of the previous 20th-century popes, and especially with Pope Benedict XVI.

However, such claims show forth the very issues upon which faithful Catholics disagree! For Pope Francis has indeed now encouraged a change in the Church’s teaching on marriage, and he is not in agreement with the previous teaching. Nor is he in agreement with the teaching of Jesus Christ himself! Thus, there comes a point where our loyalty to the Truth of Christ urges us respectfully to speak up, even at the cost of an ostensible unity that is not anymore itself based on the truth.

As Dr. Markus Büning, a German theologian and book author, said firmly yesterday concerning the “Pinto affair”:

Much less helpful are the repeatedly presented calls to obey the pope unconditionally. I beg your pardon? We are, after all, not in a dictatorship here. That goes too far. For me, kairos [the ripe and fitting moment] has come; and, fully so in the sense of Blessed John Henry Newman, we should now question this papalism that we have all-too-often practiced in our own circles. Additionally, we have at times the duty to oppose ecclesial authorities. Let us hear what St. Thomas Aquinas tells us about this matter: ‘Where, however, the Faith is in danger, one has to correct the superiors publicly, just as St. Paul did it; and as Augustine wrote on this matter: ‘Peter himself has given to the superiors the model that they – if they ever stray from the right path – shall accept not unwillingly when their own inferiors correct them.” (Summa theol., II-II q. 33, 4c)

Correction: the article originally gave Pinto the title of Archbishop, as several other outlets had reported. He is in fact not a bishop, but a priest. We have updated the story accordingly.

Correction 2: Pio Vito Pinto is not a priest simplex, but has the full title of: His Excellency, the Most Reverend Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto.He is not an Archbishop, nor even a bishop, but he is a Monsignor. The Dean of the Roman Rota is styled “His Excellency” and “Most Reverend” by ancient custom and express grant of such treatment by Pope Pius XI. The story has been modified to reflect his proper title.

5 of 104 readers’ comments

1. This individual reveals himself to be possibly impaired. One is reminded of the infamous Cardinal Kasper “not saying” of the African episcopate “they should not tell us too much what we have to do…” We are regarded by these men as ignoramuses. Simpletons. Groundlings.The ability to grab off the shelf whatever notion crosses his mind in an attempt to fortress the plain aberrance in a wall of fraudulent orthodox submission to papal authority is ludicrous. It appears the pope himself has abandoned the teaching of his predecessors. If he has not, simply answer the “dubia.” What reason could there be for not answering the dubia but to conceal his personal perspective and the agenda he wishes to force upon the church.The pope calculated poorly. He is now on the spot. He expects all good Roman Catholics to protect him from the consequences of his miscalculation. The only ones he can count on are the uncatechized, the low-info, those in a personal wish fulfillment zone and the clerics from whom he can withdraw his favor.These clerics leave little doubt that they have all reached their expiration date and that in factthey mistakenly slipped through quality control. Sour and dangerous to your health.

2. “The only ones he can count on are the uncatechized, the low-info”…The real tragedy here is that this applies to probably 8 out of every 10 Catholics.

3. It is staggering, really. And when you look back upon the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and its ENDURING legacy (no, we weren’t enduring a bump in the road), it becomes perfectly apparent that this was either the intended result engineered by a precursor of the Sankt Gallen Group or the consequence of a bunch of the misguided who simply did not know what they were doing. The dismemberment of catechesis was essential for the fraudulence to roll on and accomplish the metamorphosis the Church, rendering it into a shadow presence in the world.The current situation is a clarion call that all need drop the rose colored glasses and engage with an evasive maneuver. The Barque is fast approaching the ice berg, the captain is hanging out on the lido deck and the crew thinks they are in the Caribbean.

4. This is absolutely correct. I left, of my own accord, a supposedly Catholic High School, because the parents did not like hearing things that the Church taught, particularly on marriage and the family. The very worst part was that the School Administrators, even though they took an oath to uphold the teachings of the Church, time and time again failed to do so. This was quite some time ago, but I am certain it has only gotten worse. The military personnel that I have dealt with over the years are also, sadly, very ignorant about what HMC actually teaches.

5. Asking the Pope for clarification is certainly the right of the Catholic people, especially and including the Cardinals of the Church!And if the Holy Father refuses to provide those answers in private as requested, it is not only the right of the cardinals but even their duty to ask those questions publicly. St. Paul certainly made the case when he confronted St. Peter to his face over the adherence to the Jewish law question. God bless Cardinal Burke and the others!

Top Vatican judge doubles down against four Cardinals: ‘They gave the Pope a slap in the face’

The head of the Vatican’s highest appeals court has doubled down on his criticism of the four Cardinals calling for clarification of Amoris Laetitia, telling another news agency that their act amounted to a “slap in the face.”

Msgr. Vito Pinto had called the dubia a “very serious scandal” only days ago, in comments reported by Spanish news agency Religión Confidencial.

Religión Confidencial had originally reported Pinto as also saying that dubia “could lead” the pope to remove the four from the College of Cardinals, but the news agency subsequently retracted and said their tape showed he had said, in fact, that he didn’t believe the pope would do such a thing.

Now the Monsignor doubles his attack on the four Cardinals in an interview published by katholisch.de, the German bishops’ website.

By publishing their letter, “they gave the Pope a slap in the face,” said Msgr. Pinto. “The Pope can receive counsel from his Cardinals, that is something else than forcing a counsel upon him.”

In their letter four Cardinals asked Pope Francis five short questions which call for “yes or no” answers to clarify ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia. After nearly two months of the Pope’s refusing to respond, the Cardinals publicly released their letter with an explanatory note giving the faithful the opportunity to see their grave concerns touching directly on the integrity of the Catholic faith.

Msgr. Pinto remarked that the four Cardinals have no authority to have done this. “They are no institution that is qualified for anything,” he said. One of the signatories of the dubia is Cardinal Raymond Burke who served as Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura from 2008 to 2014. The Apostolic Signatura is the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church, apart from the Pope himself.

Pinto went on to say that the Cardinals have to “support” the Pope for the “gift of unity” and not “hinder him” in it. “On what do they base themselves? That they are four Cardinals? That is not enough. Please. Of course they can write their questions, but to urge him to answer and to publish the thing, that is a scandal.”

Pinto began to single out the four, as if they were lone warriors in the face of a vast majority: “The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four Cardinals contest.”

Regarding his threats to remove the four from the Cardinalate, he replied: “I am not the type to threaten. To write something like this was journalistic freedom and not respectable. To think that Francis would remove their cardinalate – no. I do not believe that he will do that. […] In itself, as Pope, he could do such a thing. The way I know Francis, he will not do it.”

Pinto called Cardinal Raymond Burke “crazy,” responding to Burke’s announcement that there will be a “formal correction” regarding the content in question of Amoris Laetitia. “This is crazy. There is no College of Cardinals that could hold the Pope accountable. The task of the Cardinals is to help the Pope in the exercise of his office and not to impede him or to give him instructions. The fact is, Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent Popes, starting with Pius X.”

He was especially annoyed with Meissner’s support of the letter: “I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. […] Meisner a great supreme shepherd! That he would go this far, I would have not expected. He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict XVI. […] And Burke – we have worked together. […] Now I would ask him: ‘Eminence, why have you done this?'”

Pinto’s counsel for the Pope is simple: “Officially this action has no value. The Church needs unity not walls, says the Pope. He will not take the Cardinalate away from the four. We know how Francis is. He believes that men can convert. I know that he prays for them.”

4 of 153 readers’ comments

1. After reading this it becomes easy to understand how the less convicted Bishops and Cardinals have not supported the Four.. Obviously Bishop Pinto is an attack dog for the Pope, reminds me very much of the liberal progressive democrat in the US. No dialogue, just scream. What a shame that this man in his position uses those words to slander these men… He is a disgrace, and as far as insulting the Pope, I am overjoyed that they are more concerned with not insulting Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

2. Well said. Msgr. Vito Pinto, a ridiculous and dishonest man, might consider these men to have figuratively given the Pope a ‘slap in the face’, but right now I’d quite happily give Vito Pinto and the disgraceful Pope Francis a less than figurative punch in the teeth. The Church has got to act before these renegades bring the Church to its knees.

3. Having read this article or interview, I consider Father Pinto an angry and arrogant old man who in fact talks some real nonsense. When Pope Francis failed to respond to the letter from these cardinals, what else were they supposed to do? Remain silent and in humble submission to a Pope in whom, for very good reason, they had lost trust because he has deviated so egregiously from the scriptures and embracing secular attitudes? When he talks about the Pope having “the charisma of Peter” how does he deduce this and a lot of other things here? In my less than humble opinion on this matter, both Pope Francis and Father Pinto are acting outside the will of God and there will not be any blessing for the Church until this is rectified and the Vatican is purged of a lot of rotten men whose hearts and actions are not concealed from Almighty God. When men behave as these men are doing, and this includes the Pope and Father Vito, I ask myself whether they truly believe and fear an all-seeing Almighty God. Just consider this: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10.

With the stakes thus clarified, certain conclusions are inescapable. If Cardinal Müller thinks he can stand athwart the darkness by staying where he is, trying to tamp down the fires of discontent stirred up by the dubia from within the Vatican apparatus by means of a more subtle, diplomatic approach, he is seriously mistaken. And if he is being told what to say, and willing to do so (recall similar reports that Msgr. Pinto from the Roman Rota wasgiven a papal order*to attack the Four Dubia Cardinals) then it is impossible for him to be trusted — and it suggests that he has come to identify, somehow, with those who have essentially held him captive in his increasingly ineffectual position.

*Msgr. Pinto Reiterates His Opinion Synod Was Work of the Holy Spirit

But the dean of Roman Rota ignores evidence of manipulation and heavy handedness from on high, and is equivocal over whether the Pope instructed him to publicly criticise the four ‘dubia’ cardinals.

As well as reiterating that Pope Francis would “leave in peace” the four cardinals who sent him 5 Dubia (doubts) about his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the dean of the Roman Rota has also repeated his opinion that the outcome of the Synod of the Family was the work of the Holy Spirit.

In comments to the Register over the phone Dec. 2, Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto said that for the first time in 60 years, the Holy Father had “convoked two synods, one after the other” and that they “are the place where the spirit [works]. This is the ecclesiology of the Church.”

Last month, Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner revealed they had sent the Pope five “doubts”, called Dubia, two months earlier. The questions aimed at clearing up ambiguities and differing interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, the Pope’s summary document on the two synods on the family which took place in 2014 and 2015.

The Pope has decided not to respond to the five questions which ask for simple “Yes” or “No” answers on whether aspects of Amoris Laetitia, particularly over whether remarried divorcees without an annulment and not living in continence can receive holy Communion, are consistent with previous papal teachings.

At a recent conference in Madrid, Msgr. Pinto hadsaidthat by publicly asking the Pope the five questions, the four cardinals were questioning the fruits of “not one synod but two”, and added: “You cannot doubt the action of the Holy Spirit.”

Given the clear manipulation at both synods, claiming they were the work of the Holy Spirit has disturbed some of the faithful. I therefore reminded him that the most controversial topics failed to obtain a two-thirds majority in the first synod, and so should customarily have been rejected (the Pope authoritatively instead insisted they be carried over to the second synod). To this, he replied: “Yes, but you bind the Holy Spirit to the two-thirds? That’s a bit special, no?”

A two-thirds majority is required during a synod to offer reassurance that whatever passes is of the Holy Spirit. Synods also have no authority to change doctrine and discipline, as stated in canon 342 of the Code of Canon Law, but rather to assist the Pope in safeguarding and promotion of sound doctrine concerning faith and morals.

To further argue his point, Msgr. Pinto referred to the “wide consultation” around the synod in the form of questionnaires, and pointed out that for the second synod last year, bishops’ conferences elected synod fathers to participate. He stressed that, for the second synod, every proposition passed by two-thirds. Therefore, for him, the two-thirds majority became an important sign of the Holy Spirit at work, but only when they all achieved the required majority to pass and did not need to be forced through from above.

Added to that inconsistency, he omitted to mention that not all the synod fathers were elected at the second synod: 45 were handpicked by the Pope (exceeding the usual 15% limit of total delegates) because most of them supported controversial disciplinary changes in this and other areas. They included Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the archbishop emeritus of Brussels, Belgium, found to have covered up a sexual abuse case.

Asked why the proposition on Holy Communion for remarried divorcees left out the full text of Familiaris Consortio 84, particularly on forbidding Communion unless living as brother and sister, thereby allowing Cardinal Kasper and others to claim that it does open the door to the sacraments, he said that issue was “too long” to discuss over the phone. “We cannot discuss all the synod questions”, he said, “but I think it’s enough to remember that Pope did not decide anything in solitude.”

At the conclusion of the synod, the remarried-divorcee discernment and accompaniment proposition ended up passing a two-thirds majority by just one vote, probably an impossible feat without the 45 unelected delegates and, it is argued, without the omissions in the text.

In his comments made in Madrid, Msgr. Pinto said he believed the four cardinals were committing a “very serious scandal” by publicly asking the Pope the five questions, although contrary to initial reports, he did not say they risked being dismissed from the Cardinalate.

It was nevertheless strong censure, and he later doubled down on criticizing the cardinals in an interview with Katholisches.de, a website run by the German bishops’ conference.

His comments took place just days after the Holy Father visited Msgr. Pinto and the Roman Rota. A reliable source has told the Register that Francis had instructed Msgr. Pinto at that event to say something publicly critical of the cardinals. The Holy See Press Office has not responded to the allegation.

Asked if the Pope did make such a request, Msgr. Pinto told the Register he was unable to answer that question “by phone”. He went on to say: “The dean has certainly been in contact with the Pope. He came to see me on the 18th, but it’s not necessary that the Pope tells me about that. That’s what I can tell you.”

Despite his differences with the four cardinals, Msgr. Pinto said he knows Cardinal Burke “very well and I’ve always known him to be a man of peace” and he prayed that he “might see the way.” He also said he knows Cardinal Meisner well, has “great esteem” for both him and Cardinal Burke, and was “astonished” by the German cardinal’s participation in the Dubia. “Let us pray for the poor cardinals,” he said.

Meanwhile, leading German philosopher Robert Spaemann has given an interview in support of the four cardinals, saying it is “regrettable” that more have not joined them.

Spaemann, a friend of Benedict XVI and one of the most distinguished Catholic intellectuals in Europe, told the Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana that the cardinals “have taken the correct road” and that the Pope’s decision not to answer the five questions “fills me with concern”. He said the Pope “clearly has a deep aversion towards decisions which require a yes or no”. But Christ, said Spaemann, often “shocked the apostles with simplicity and clarity of the doctrine”.